Letters to David
Irving on this Website

Unless
correspondents ask us not to, this Website will
post selected letters that it receives and invite
open debate.

Quick
navigation

After the
Trial

"Dear
Scumbag" and other letters

These are edited
selections from the thousands of messages received by
David Irving during and since the trial of Deborah
Lipstadt for libel. Readers are requested not to express
comments to these correspondents in intemperate language.
[More
letters]

Hilary
Perry-Keene
writes from Australia: My
son has informed me of the true facts regarding the
"Holocaust", for many years, although I was in England
during the 2nd World War and was taught all the usual
things. I have heard many of your tapes and read a lot of
your literature, and I believe that what you say is true. I
am appalled at the way you have been treated, and I think
you are a very brave man to try to stand up to so many
ignorant and vindictive people who are out to destroy you
and suppress what you say, by any means. So I thought I
would like to let you know that I, among many others, am
just one more who is listening with rapt attention to all
you are saying, which I feel is completely convincing, and
the recent Lipstadt Court Case results have no effect on my
views.

Free
downloads of David Irving's books:-->bookmark
this page to find new downloads

Gaza writes
from the San Francisco Bay area:
I can believe Christ may have said "Forgive these ignorant
slobs"; but, "Ouch!"? -- You are a truly impressive man, and
an inspiration to countless others. I hope you will return
to the SF Bay Area before I am in Australia.

N.
Surendran writes:
I completely disagree with your views on the Holocaust
and Hitler. However , I am disgusted by the violent smear
campaign being conducted by all sorts of pompous
self-righteous liberals against you. I admire the fact that
you have stood against all the world in defence of what you
belief is the truth. In particular, I am sickened that the
Telegraph recently ran a poll on whether you should be
allowed to publish your 'brand of history'. By debating
whether your works should be banned, they have shown us who
the real Fascists are.

Susan
Toft writes:
You invited us to write to the Beeb for giving you a
platform. I wrote and told them of my horror at them doing
it. I have learnt a lot about you since my school
project.

We
reply: Well done Ruth, I take it you are a supporter of free
speech; did they teach you anything about the enemies of
free speech at school?

William
McTernan writes: History is important to me. I was a grammar-school
kid during the World War II, so I was acutely aware of what
was going on. One of my old friends is David Kahn
("Hitler'sSpies') who I'm sure you're not surprised is not
one of your biggest fans. He makes a good point. the
Fuehrerprinzip was so pervasive in the Reich, it's a bit
difficult to believe that Hitler was unaware of what was
going on in the East. Granted, there may not have been as
many Jews killed as the Holocaustics would have us believe.
But there were a lot of them. And a lot of Russians ... many
many more ... and a lot of Gypsies ... and a lot of
homosexuals ... and a lot of Evangelical Christians.

Eugene J.
Siedlecki provides a less educated view:
After having read both your version of the holocaust
and many many others I have come to the logical conclusion
that you are at best ignorant, and at worst a bigot. In
either case you really should stop embarrassing yourself and
your family in such a public manner. There is empirical
evidence both from eyewitness survivors and the Nazi's own
documents(remember the were meticulous record keepers) That
the holocaust did indeed occur and was organized by the
highest echelons within the Nazi regime. To deny this shows
your limited intelligence and questionable credentials and
may I add, you lack of social conscience. To put it bluntly
Sir you are an embarrassment to the whole human race and if
you had ANY moral fiber you would seek professional help
immediately.

[...] I am well aware that there are other fools
such as yourself who share your Neanderthal view.

P.S. In your will you should specify an anonymous burial,
as I for one will come piss on your grave.

John
Moore writes:You are a great historian, Mr. Irving, and I wish to
let you know you are appreciated and understood far and
wide, in places that might surprize you. I am a humble bus
driver in Seattle, but I have read some of your excellent
books, and if you ever find yourself in Seattle, you may
consider yourself my honored guest. Take heart, be
courageous; you love the truth and speak for many more of us
than even you yourself may realize.

Lipstadt-fan Dennis
Kite's command of English appears
limited:
Dear Scumbag: I would bet that you will be celebrating Der
Fuehrer's birthday on Thursday. Why don't you take a short
trip to Munich and visit a beer hall .... maybe you could
have a putsch with your Neo-Nazi friends and supporters.
Thank goodness the forces of fascism were routed 55 years
ago.

Stuart
Weibel writes:I am the son of a Sudeten German. Having heard the
experiences of my relatives, I learned years ago that the
history books available to us do not accurately reflect
events as they truly occurred. I have valued your books over
the years because not only are your writings developed from
source documents but you also established relationships with
and queried personalities from that period in time. Those of
us not touched by the despicable nature of the smear
campaigns you have had to endure, are deeply moved by your
show of strength and character in defending your reputation
and livelihood.My comparison of the court transcripts and
the media's articles regarding your trial has done much to
show me how poorly served we are by our news media. You are
a man to be admired.

Miguel
Gonzalez-Hermosillo writes from Mexico City:
Since my early days as a post graduate student at the
London School of Economics and Political Science back in
1976 I have observed with interest your constant trek in
searching for your truth and in writing about the subjects
that still are affecting us in our today's world. Those that
cannot understand what happened in World War II cannot
explain themselves many of the social and political
upheavals still shocking the post war scene. In this task of
understanding the facts concerning the forces behind World
War II and its aftermath is where your works have played a
significant role, influencing many, like me, to see through
the veils that the triumphant countries made after the
conclusion of such an event.

James
Buchan gives a glimpse of the workings of mass
media: The New York Times magazine no longer intends to run
my article on your libel case. It is, alas, a matter beyond
my control. Thank you for your trouble in answering my
questions during the trial.

J
Lemel is a strategic studies graduate
(Aberystwyth 1985):A course we read was Foreign Policy of National
Socialist Germany 1933 -1939. One of your books -- I can't
remember which one was on our reading list. Our lecturer
warned us then not to take you too seriously but I remember
at the time being put off by your style which struck me at
the time as being for people with a low reading age. Anyhow,
now you are exposed for what you are, a marginal crank, I am
happy that what little of your 'work' I read, none of it
stayed with me. I always did prefer genuine historians like
Alan Bullock and Trevor-Roper who know how to
weigh up historical records objectively.

We
answered: how fortunate that you had lecturers who prevented
you from thinking. What was his name, our readers would like
to be warned against him? [No reply was
provided].

Adrian
Toerien, a 18 year old White living in Southern
Africa, writes: I have been a great fan of yours for years and have
been greatly influenced by your sheer determination to keep
on fighting. Your books are remarkably set out, you are one
of the few historians who would actually take the trouble to
look up the facts to bring accurate history and for that you
have my greatest respect. I was greatly shocked by your loss
in court but hope all goes well for your appeal. You have
the respect of a great many people here who are praying for
you.

Peter
Chapman of Exeter University comments:Bad luck on being stung by our illegitimate alien
inspired establishment. I am studying for an MA in 'the
history of european fascism' at the university of Exeter
with Prof.Jeremy Noakes as my tutor.He is a woolly
minded old liberal but really isn't such a bad old stick,
although he said something about appearing in your next case
but refused to elaborate. One day I hope to be able to write
innovative history in the manner expounded by yourself and
would like to thank you for being an inspiration to my
humble studies.

Ronnie
Tait writes: I have read several of your books and always thought
them to be well balanced and fair.

R
LeBaron writes from Florida: MILLIONS AROUND THE WORLD SUPPORT
YOU. STAY THE COURSE!

D Wentz
comments from "sunny California":
Big money, big lawyers are hard to beat. Look no further
than five years ago and a famous football player vs. the
L.A.P.D.

I
have read Hitler's
War four times, Goebbels
once, your masterpiece on Rommel, as well as many
articles and interviews about you. When I was 12 years old I
remember watching a documentary on the Desert Fox by H.B.O.
You were their main source for information and besides
Manfred Rommel, the only person to be interviewed for
the program. I still have a copy of that documentary. You
are a fair, unbiased, objective historian. I enjoy your work
and I hope you will not let this court case stop your future
endeavors. I am not a Nazi, nor a racist but a truth seeker
and of all authors of World War II that I've read you are at
the top. My wife is ready to strangle me because my library
is outgrowing our home! Now you must get up off the canvas,
dust yourself off and get ready for another of Historical
Boxing.

I hope you will keep up the fight, not against a race of
people as many accuse you of, but a fight for the right to
free speech and to looking at all sides of an issue even if
it is an uncomfortable one for some.

"Kenneth
Hall" offers congratulations from Sweden:
... After all these years it has been fully established and
you have conquered a unique championship. In fact you can
compare yourself to Elvis Prelsey. He was the King of
Rock'n'Roll and will always be remembered. You will soon be
forgotten. But as long as you live the world will know that
you are nothing but a simple liar and falsifier. Your are
the King of Lies! Whenever you say Good Day to anybody
people will look at the sky wondering if he is lying once
again. Deborah Lipstadt and Judge Gray are the heroes of the
day!

We
answered: Please show the passage in the Hon. Mr
Justice Gray's judgment where he even uses the word liar,
let alone describes Mr Irving as one? Are you not therefore
the liar? [Hall did not reply]

Lymon
Trusanc wrote: Dear Mr. Irving, I will be brief, let me state with
conviction, that the same thing is being done to you that
was done to the Jews during World War II, it is
unconscionable -- by the Jews. It is sad that we never seem
to learn from history, and are doomed to repeat it over and
over again, and guilty of using the same tactics which were
employed to destroy (during World War II) a people, in a
court of law against you. One other issue -- did you expect
the judge to impartially side with you? If he sided with you
he would have faced the same destructive machine. The judge
laughed publicly after rendering the verdict against
you.

"Bruce
Taylor" writes: There have been many perverse and wrong judgments in
judicial history worldwide and particularly in England.
Having read your transcripts and the judgment, this judgment
has been one of them. The scenes of aussault upon your
person, with police standing by and doing nothing, were
disgusting. In TV footage a woman with brown hair can
clearly be made out to throw an egg at you and yet police
did nothing. Your restraint, dignity and pursuit of truth
have truly been an inspiration to this solicitor. Your
courage is remarkable and I assure you not in vain. In the
end your research, your facts will be passed on to my
children, my relatives and friends, and hopefully one day
this battle will serve as springboard to finally allow truth
to emerge. You are still the most outstanding WW2
historian.

Dan
McGuire adds:
Sir John Keegan, it would appear, is one of the few
academic historians decent enough to come
to your defense and to resist the repugnant
bandwagonning that's been going on among the Ivory Tower
types since the verdict came down. Bully for him. Too bad
you did not ask him what he thought of Lipstadt when you had
him in the witness box. It's telling how you argued that if
you lost your case free speech would be in jeopardy. Before
and during the trial, Julius et al. said, "Oh no,
Irving's misleading you; this case is not about free
speech." Now that the case is over, however, I see that
Julius is pushing for a new law to restrict free speech
about certain aspects of the World War II.

Andrew Gray of Washington DC:
Your health and well-being are crucial to the whole effort.
Meanwhile your worldwide constituency has been vastly
expanded. The Dreyfus trial is no analogy. ... There
is an apposite Wagner anecdote. His Tannhäuser,
as you know, was hissed of the stage by the Jockey Club
members in paris in March 1861. When this was reported to
Gounoud, he is alleged to have said, Que Dieu me
donne und telle chute. ["I wish God would give me a
fiasco like that!"]

B
Heilbrunn is a man of few words, mostly
illiterate (and with an obsession with washing?):
Your through; washed up; finished.

Pat
Hammer seems obsessed on the other hand with
bums:
Serves you right that you lost you bum. People evil like you
should not have the forum to influence others with your lies
and misconstrued information. May the $3 million legal fees
put you in the poorhouse and out of the public view for the
rest of your life.

Joseph
Garrick writes from Vancouver, Canada:
It was sad to see that an English judge can descend to
utilizing the hallowed halls of a respected English
institute of justice to launch a venomous personal attack on
a plaintiff appearing in a case before him and pleading for
the benefit of his wisdom in matters of jurisprudence to
equitably resolve the issue. I would like to enquire as to
what, if indeed any, his Lordship's qualifications are in
matters historical? Does he have a sufficient grounding and
understanding of the study of the subject of history? Does
he have any knowledge of the research methodology that can
be employed in the course of historical research??

Kornel
Szarmes states:
Thank God for the Internet that cannot be controlled by the
"victims". They wanted to silence you, but instead they
opened the eyes of the world to their lies and distortions.
They consider you a very dangerous man, which is
understandble. Who would have dared to contradict them and
dig up documents and the truth about their false historic
claim which, over the decades remains very profitable both
financially and politically. Money can buy politicians,
lawyers and servile "historians", who now are gloating for
the time being! But, the final judgment has not been
written! Have the strength to carry on and see your
convictions win the last battle. I wish you success in your
future struggle.

Robert G.
Lembke comments:
The events of the last few days have been depressing.
However, I wish you the best and am sure that you will
bounce back from this reverse.

Your performance, physically and intellectually, during
the trial was simply breathtaking. You clearly have the
strength to weather the moment's adversity. Muddle through
and regroup; you have many friends and admirers.

From Chile we receive this message from Ambassador
Miguel Serrano:
Lift up your heart! You also won losing. From now on, the
heroes of the World are with you until the end. The
Archetype is taking you by the hand.

[Mr Serrano is a Chilean writer
and diplomat, who served as an Ambassador mainly in India,
Yugoslavia and Austria, and is the author of the books
"Hesse and Jung: A Record of Two Friendships", "Book of the
Resurrection" and "El Cordon Dorado -- Hitlerismo
Esoterico", among others.]

Professor Omar
Bagasra suggests:
The main reason that you were the prime target of the
Zionist Attack was, I believe, because what you said made
sense and TRUTH always makes sense.
So, keep on telling the TRUTH. We are
listening to you.

Mace
Maclean expresses condolences:
I do not pretend to have any special knowledge of the events
surrounding the Holocaust, other than what I learned at
school, and subsequently in the media. However, having
studied both English an European Law, and having a keen
interest in the freedom of speech and historical accuracy, I
welcome the stance you have taken in this issue. I saw your
interview on Sky News this evening (April 14, 2000), and was
very impressed.

It is important that people like yourself stand up and
make your views heard in the interests of historical
accuracy. The public at large should be left to make their
own minds up on all the available evidence, not just that
presented by those conforming to the 'politically correct'
view. Moreover, those that challenge the 'politically
correct' view should not be presented in the kind of way
that you have, but should be welcomed into open debate as
valid contributors to history.

In
Court very early on in this trial I defined the Holocaust
as "The tragedy inflicted on the millions of European
Jews by the Nazis and their collaborators during the
Third Reich." That is a pretty broad definition, and I
don't deny it.

Lehrer's comment:
In my critical thinking class a few years ago that sort of
argument was called fallacy by definition. That is, the
practice of redefining a term so broadly (or so narrowly, as
the case may be) in order to serve your particular argument
and as a way of evading the conventionally accepted meaning
of the term. It's little more than a semantic trick, an
attempt at sophistry, you are redefining the term Holocaust
in such vague terms in order to evade the charge of denial,
that's all and you pretty much admit that in your final
sentence above.

In
particular I have repeatedly read out to even the most
right-wing audiences the vivid eye witness descriptions
of the shootings of thousands of Jews by units at Riga in
November 1941. -- Horrifying descriptions. And I told
those listeners that this was proof that these things did
happen. But I demand the right to analyze aspects of the
Holocaust, like whether certain buildings at Auschwitz
and Birkenau were indeed "factories of death" in which
half a million Jews were gassed and cremated. Those facts
I disbelieve, and the judge also found a hard time
extracting evidence on them from the (highly paid:
£109,000 for one!!) experts hired by the defence
lawyers.

You've also equated Jewish casualties with German casualties
arguing that the former were simply ordinary war victims and
that there was nothing particularly remarkable or systematic
about the murder of Jews during World War II, after all, bad
things happen in war. Worst of all you've suggested on
numerous occasions that the Jews are responsible for their
own fate, in today's parlance that sort of argument is
called "blaming the victim."

Kashif
Noon writes:
I am from an ethnic minority in England and I have views
which are independent from the media's on your court case. I
for one do not think that you are racist in the accepted
sense of the word; in fact no more racist than all of us if
we are honest about ourselves.

Tim
Diehl, of Biglerville, Pennsylvania, has this
comment:
How does it feel to be shown to be a bogus historian in
front of the whole world? I have been to Buchenwald
(right) and Dachau. Would you
tell me that the gas chambers there were put in after World
War II? What about the testomony of Gens. Eisenhower,
Bradley and Patton? As your trial has shown you
have distorted history to serve your own racist and bigoted
beliefs. (And if you want to try to deny that you are a
anti-semite maybe you should consider changing the content
of your webpage) The struggle for truth goes on daily and it
is my sincere hope that you and others who hold your
apoligist views of Hitler and the Nazis are continually
subjected the the fate you suffered during your trial.
Unfortunately it is as nothing compared to the suffering of
millions inflicted by Hitler and his psychopathic
cronies.

P.S. My great-great uncle was Alfred Kesselring and I am
as German as an American possibly can be and yet I am still
ashamed of what the German people allowed to happen during
World War II. My father fought against Nazi tyranny and I am
very proud of that fact. I do not want his legacy to be
tarnished by people such as you who would say that what he
and others like him fought for and DIED for and won was not
the noble and worthy cause which it was.

WORTH
POINTING OUT: None of the US generals mentioned referred to
Auschwitz, "gas chambers," or the Holocaust in their
biographies.

Ralph
Hope, of 25 Albany Ave, New Canaan, NY 07102
wants us to know:
Dear Steel worker (you have no other profession), Wow, you
lost big time. You always were a liar but now it's official.
After you lose your flat where will you live? Perhaps the
government will give you a council flat next door to some
PROFESSIONAL immigrants. By the way,
the British troops on the beaches of Normandy were not
trying to prevent coloured immigration, they were trying to
prevent German immigration. Those same British troops would
have inflicted the same justice on you as they did on your
forerunner Lord Haw Haw. So what's next in your wasted life?
What kind of work can an unreliable psuedo-historian get? Is
Irving a Jewish name? You look Jewish. Bye bye Irv the purv.
I won't bother writing to you again.

Ralph Hope
however then inquires:
Do you think that your obsession with Hitler is in anyway a
homo-erotic obsession? Perhaps you are looking for a strong
father figure? Was your father absent a lot during your
childhood? Were you sexually abused as a child? How did you
daughter die? Was it suicide? Hope that you have nice
weekend. You must be feeling pretty low after your total
humiliation by the British legal system this week. Please
publish this e-mail in your readers section too. Yours
chuckling, Ralph Hope

A. Grynspan (totally unrelated in any way to the
Herschel G. who assassinated Legationsrat vom Rath or the
Governor of the Federal Reserve), forbids us thusly:

I deny David Irving, any request or right to publish, in
whole or in part, duplicate in any form or manner,
electronically post, distribute any of my personal
information for any purpose whatsoever being contemplated .
. . Any past, current and future personal correspondence
between Mr Irving and the undersigned is private and has
been and will continue to be submitted in complete
confidentiality between the subject named parties.

Gary S. Redish a lawyer of Hackensack, New Jersey,
writes:
I read Hitler's War 20 years ago and thought it was a very
well written and researched book-it leads me to wonder what
took place since then with you. ... While I disagree with
everything you say and stand for, you certainly have the
right to say it and you are certainly an intelligent and
interesting albeit misguided person. I was in London in mid
Jan and sat in at the trial for half a day -- it was
interesting -- perhaps you missed your calling and should
have read for the Bar.

Robin
Crompton suggests:
I am sure you will take it like a man, having seen you on
Newsnight last night. Paxman was much more aggressive
towards you than Ms Lipstadt. I am glad you will appeal. But
in a British court,I doubt whether you will get justice.
Remember the Aldington/Tolstoy case, ten years back? You
have every right, under the Western intellectual tradition,
to challenge orthodoxy. But it is a painful and thankless
business. I have just ordered a further book from your
website. Your Nuremberg book was an eye-opener.

Charles
E Lincoln writes:
I can't imagine how anybody could think that you were not
injured by Lipstadt's book. Furthermore, I do not see why
anyone has ever called you a Holocaust denier. Denying the
gas chambers is not the same as denying the Holocaust. I've
never understood why it's heresy to say that the total dead
would be 1.8 or 3.5 or 5.9 million instead of the sacred
figure of 6.0 million.

Anonymous
writes:
Let's face it, your reputation as a historian has been
shredded, there isn't a publisher of any standing who will
even return your calls, and you may have bankrupted
yourself. And in the end this wasn't done by any Jewish
conspiracy, it was done by you.You did it to yourself by
your failers (sic) as a
historian having more effect than your abilities.

K. S. comes in from Los Angeles:
I am a college student who have studied history for several
years. I have hitherto believed that Holocaust was a truth,
not a myth. However, I have been shocked by your firm denial
on the gas chambers at concentration camps. I have no doubt
that you have certain evidences in order to stand your
theory. If not, you would not deny so firmly though you have
been under fire for years. Moreover, I have heard that you
have only used primary sources when you research. That is
why I have felt that I should re-take a look the way you
have studied.At any rate, you have shown me how historians
should view the history of mankind.

Robert
dubé writes from Canada:
I have read very carefully your opening statement and many
other articles on your web site. I have come to the
conclusion that you are indeed a Neo-Nazi who is denying the
Holocaust. And I believe you have the right to express your
opinion but you have to accept the consequences of your
actions.You are the one who started the whole story by your
libel action. Denying or downsizing ( by suppression or
omission ) the Holocaust is outrageoust. That's my point of
view.

A
S writes from England:
I have much respect for you because of the way you generally
defend 'your' people. You have got a lot of guts to do what
you did in court and you are very honest in your thoughts.
Most of the people that interviewed you on TV are probably
more racist than you, except you are not a coward like them.
I would like to know what Mr Paxman would be thinking in his
mind if he got mugged and racially abused by a group of
ethnics. I'm sure he would not feel like kissing their asses
then! I think your superior intellect would be better
directed towards the growing realisation that the real
British will soon be a minority in their own land.

Hans Broch
Nielsen points out:
We´ve read the coverage Aftenposten has given you, and
they haven't been totally negative either. Just to let you
appear and to hear your arguments is important. It's so
incredible that a British court have ruled against you. It's
really a justice murder of the worst kind. I do believe that
most people see through that. And that you have been alone
in the court against twelve lawyers. That has also given you
sympathy. I´ve read Hitlers War, downloaded
from the internet. The book changed my view completely
on the warlord side of Hitler. I myself have belonged to the
left side of the politics, but it dosen´t take much
intelligence and knowledge to see the lies about Hitler and
the national socialist.

As
one who has followed this trial, I think you need
to reconsider the facts referenced in your article.
Consider this: David Irving has written over
30 books; Miss Lipstadt's team of lawyers
spent three years poring over his books, checking
and cross-checking every single footnote and
deconstructing and attacking every single thesis;
all that these lawyers found were 19 mistakes, of
which only a dozen or fewer could be considered
serious. What historian could withstand such
careful scrutiny and emerge without error or
passion? Certainly not Gibbon, certainly not
Tacitus. Do you really think that this makes
David Irving a "falsifier of history"? Consider too
that this same "dream team" combed through Irving's
thirty-million word diary, looking for racist
rhetoric and could find only one harmless little
ditty -- something Gilbert & Sullivan
might have written. And so he made a few off-color
remarks to right-wing audiences as the immense
pressure from Jewish smear groups mounted against
him, scaring off his publishers, endangering his
family, narrowing his prospects, and even denying
him entry to countries where archives necessary to
his research are located. Does this make him
racist, or just a little ticked off? I think you
give away your bias when you claim that the
Holocaust is the most sensitive area of
twentieth-century history. What, or rather who,
makes you write that?

S Scott, a contributor to the fund, writes:
I am appalled at the verdict reached. In a world of mediocre
little men willing to stiffle all in the cause of political
correctness, you have the courage to speak your mind.

Neils, a
lawyer, writes in less generous vein:
Mr. Irving, In a British court of justice, the truth won.
You are a pitiful, dishonest, pathetic old man, and in the
last chance you had to accomplish even a small victory in
your life, you failed. Like Hitler when he pulled the
trigger thus confessing to the world, "I have failed!", you
are and will eventually die... a failure. Good riddance,
when the time comes.

John
Parkinson of Cirencester writes:
I greatly admired how you stood up to the television
presenters the other night. Your honesty and dignity did you
as much credit as if you had won your case. But I think from
the judgment and subsequent media comment, it is very
apparent that you were never going to win. I think something
good may come out of this. There are signs that some
sensible rational people are beginning to sit up and think,
rather than accept what they had always been told or was too
risky to question. At least the media informed me of your
website. Do not worry, I am not a skinhead nutter, but like
you I am honest enough to admit in public, my views and
fears -- the same as all my friends and business associates
who are happy to joke about and discuss privately amongst
friends. My late parents and their friends were far more
open and honest about it, but then they did not have to be
politically correct. My parents were the middle class
backbone of society.

Robert
Gordon however comments:
I was outraged to hear what you had to say Mr Irving. If I
was (sic) you, I would hang my
head in shame. It is a disgrace. If there were no gas
chambers, would you mind explaining to me how six million
Jews died? You are ignorant, and the fact that you would
raise your daughter in such an environment, proves what a
nasty man you are. You deserve no respect. You are a liar.
Two million pounds was simply not enough. Not only should
they have fined you, but you should have gone to prison.
When saying the word 'ape' in that poem, are you trying to
say that you were not referring to a specific race? You have
blood on your hands and you will never be able to wipe it
off.

Reinhard
D. Jäger of London wrote to the editor of
Daily Telegraph

Sir
-- While one should be not be at all surprised at
the verdict against historian David Irving
it was upsetting to see such a respected
publication as the Telegraph engage in accusations
and insinuations that would otherwise be confined
to the columns of the tabloid rags.

The
Holocaust is such a sacred cow that any discussion
of it where the standard orthodox version of events
is not maintained is seen as in some way or another
defamatory. The evidence against Mr Irving -- the
scenes at the outdoor meeting in Halle instantly
come to mind -- was for the most part selected,
edited, cut, pasted and then re-edited to make him
appear in a more sinister light. Mr Irving at no
stage has ever denied the Holocaust; he has simply
stated that many of its key elements are
fundamentally flawed.

This
does not constitute wholesale denial. Neither,
however crass it may have been, does his comparison
of the Auschwitz I 'gas chamber' to something one
could find in Disneyland -- it is a fact,
acknowledged by curator Franciszek Piper,
that the installation is a dummy constructed by the
Poles after the war's end.

As
a student of the period, I have always found it
difficult to understand why we should be prevented
from opening a civilised debate on the Holocaust
issue, and why we haven't been allowed to get to
grips with really happened during those dark years.

Justice
Gray has not only attempted to silence David
Irving, but all of those who dare to upset the
applecart driven by the historical
orthodoxy.

Dave
Whyte is very, very angry:
As an avid reader of historical material, I have found your
material to be very well researched, balanced and easy to
digest. I cannot believe that the world has gone so insanely
politically correct. I watched the report of the trial on
Channel 4 News (normally very balanced), and couldn't
believe my ears. Your responses were reasoned, sensible and
from what I know most of the people would consider to be
normal British opinion. I am neither rascist or anti
anything -- except STUPIDITY and LIES.